From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Unseen as edited by TomMoore (Talk | contribs) at 20:00, 1 April 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Some of these examples seem like they are actually observable:

  • the medical harm from gambling and pornography (if by "medical" it is meant either "psychological" or "physical", these are both observable)
  • the invisible hand (this one's borderline -- the "invisible hand" itself can't be seen (because it doesn't exist), but its effects can be seen)
  • prayer and its effects (definitely prayer, but not necessarility its effects)
  • migration patterns of butterflies and birds (definitely observable -- perhaps it is meant the inherent nature of these migrations?)
  • deterrence of crime by self-defense (this can be seen both in person and as a whole)

HelpJazz 19:59, 24 March 2008 (EDT) --Aschlafly 17:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The intent and meaning of each of those points is obvious, don't you think?--Aschlafly 17:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

I am deleting the line at the bottom of this article. It is a bit silly. They wouldn't be able to interact (and know about) the outside world. Being deaf this person couldn't learn to speak. As he is blind, he couldn't learn sign language. Because he has no sense of touch, he couldn't even learn sign language like Helen Keller, or learn through a bizarre smell or taste related system. Funnily enough, this person wouldn't know about God (no communication). He might be visited by God in his mind, but we couldn't know that (no communication, and brain scans wouldn't tell us is God is in his mind, only something is going on). Of course there is the unlikely chance that a sign from God (a clear one) would let us know that our disabled friend knew about the outside world.--Phillipps 11:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I forgot to add my other point. Are encyclopedias supposed to give hypothetical situations?--Phillipps 11:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Not as a general rule, no. HelpJazz 12:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Hypotheticals can be effective in explaining a concept.--Aschlafly 17:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me this article is confusing two different kinds of unseen things. One sort, like Newtonian action at a distance and migration patterns, is invisible, but can be tested and proven by experiment. The other, like "Evil" and "ideas", can't, and has to be taken on faith. --Gulik5 13:00, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

No, you seem to miss the point. An unseen action-at-a-distance cannot be proven and in fact is denied by many materialists.--Aschlafly 17:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Huh? I was under the impression that "Newtonian action at a distance" is what us heathens call Gravity. And even someone as skeptical as me can't deny that it exists, and is keeping my hindquarters firmly pressed into my chair at this very moment. --Gulik5 21:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I was unaware that materialists generally deny the existence of radiation. Let me tell you something: NASA is going to be screwed if that is the case.--TomMoore 20:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)